Faith in science?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not use my own understanding. I use the evolved academic science based Methodological Naturalism, which is uniform over all the cultures of the world.

No, it is not. In Denmark your science is not science. It is natural science. That is as cultural and unique as your cultural position.
Now get your Anglo-Saxon cultural imperialism out of here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, academic science based on objective verifiable evidence. .

You used this site: What Hard Problem? | Issue 99 | Philosophy Now
So in effect you lie, are dishonest or irrational.

 

[cladking]

I'm conscious about gravity because I am told it exists, it makes sense to me that things generally fall to the ground and don't go upward on their own 'steam.' Steam? Maybe I'm using the wrong word there...
Now the English language is what it is. Does gravity exist? Does existence mean it is alive? You tell me.

No.

You are not conscious about gravity. You were taught that gravity exists using axioms and definitions of science. A gymnast might be said to be conscious of gravity if he feels the center of the earth and is acquainted with definitions. People confuse consciousness for language because we are taught everything known with language as the medium and language supporting the mental models we make of all knowledge.

Consciousness transcends the brain and encompasses the mind/ body and it transcends language, belief, taxonomies, induction, and abstractions. Indeed, all these things act as impediments to the understanding of the nature of consciousness. A sparrow understands consciousness where a human does not.

Consciousness is that which allows the individual to survive and succeed.

 

[Brian2]

Maybe. Though if we imagine a working theory of consciousness then whatever entities the theory posits would be considered natural, no?

Well God should be considered natural, being the creator of us, the first consciousness. I guess that leaves us as the ACs, Artificial Consciousnesses. We are only conscious of what the creator allowed us to be conscious of.

I think that people can be amazingly clever, especially when they're cooperating. Maybe I'm just confident that people have the smarts to make sense of anything we can think about.

Yes we can do most anything if we come together and cooperate. We aren't doing that when it comes to some things in science however since most of the world's people, those who are not naturalists, are being left out and so naturalistic science will reach it's own biased ideas about consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

You used this site: What Hard Problem? | Issue 99 | Philosophy Now
So in effect you lie, are dishonest or irrational.

I did not use it first @exchmist referred to it, and I simply quoted it to refute his contentions. The reference affirmed that science gives an objective understanding of consciousness. There are still unknowns, but science works.

Read it carefully . . .

"Consciousness as we have been discussing it is a biological process, explained by neurobiological and other cognitive mechanisms, and whose raison d’etre can in principle be accounted for on evolutionary grounds. To be sure, it is still largely mysterious, but (contra Dennett and Churchland) it is no mere illusion (it’s too metabolically expensive, and it clearly does a lot of important cognitive work), and (contra Chalmers, Nagel, etc.) it does not represent a problem of principle for scientific naturalism."

© Prof. Massimo Pigliucci 2013

 

[rational experiences]

Science designer man human group agreement got irradiated encoded by his mAchine design when machine not active or reactive was reacted by his control.

No previous reaction owns a God earth mass quote. Earth naturally sealed owned natural heavens.

No reaction. No machine status. Reaction changed his mind instantly.

Mass removed to build machine melted was artificially cooled.

First false God status machine gained design. God sealed mass.

Not God. A fake machine body.

Then he reacts machine. So took natural awAy twice.

Got attacked irradiated brain mind encoded a new belief that design. Machine was God natural.

Lucky water mass existed.

When God became created space by human caused thesis sink holes opened. His machines got attacked.

Mass no longer existed by definition sink hole.

Water mass cooling stops his machines from blowing up. The only reason. Yet water taken from nature had to copy he gained machine body.

God he said as Satanic self needs by theory to interact react by machine conditions. Quote I now control God mass

Earth then had to overheat like minerals had to get machine body. So water was taken from life support

So when a machine overheats and mass is gone a sink hole appears.

Equals answer. God answers my machine programming.

Converted removed mass natural part of his thesis

Then the theist complains that natural won't do as he asks

Remain constantly opened and not shut off. Machine want in reaction. To own no end rationally. Every state created with an end. Self presence.

One of his false prophet teachings.

If the vacuum did not shut off the earthquake Jesus event....no light in heavens ancient cause and remained constant in opened non stop reacting. No life would even exist today.

Earth would have blown up.

Jesus history theme says saved God the earth from being destroyed.

No man is God why life got sacrificed.

If you believe man is God you are only discussing planet earth.

Humans all know humans die
Humans know stigmata comes and goes.

Someone asks did Jesus a scientific review save our life by various themes human and reactive earth changes.

The stories not just about a human but earth changes also.

Obviously did.

His mother of God vacuum did it. As a science teaching. Not human.

In ovary male baby life his human mother ovary saved him to live

He compares the two incidences claiming it all one. Lies.

Shut off a God earth reaction. Saved life. It ended.

Hence if science proposes it will keep a reaction.open. It is a human conscious awareness of words confess of Sion. Words used to infer what Sion meant in science to a human.

Word use

Natural aware how to live was not worded. It was natural aware.

Trust science when inventive reactive science is satanism. Not likely.

How many of you forgot that our brother called his own brother a satanist and destroyer

When earth as Satan O burning gases existed before God seal as earth stone?

God the seal kept life safe.

Science decided to unseal it. Claim God by mass should be removed in full knowledge they discuss stone presence and it's removal.

Lucky for life mass of wAter is not scientific reactive supportive.

Lucky mass existed naturally and not by a string of thoughts

Otherwise no life or God O earth would even exist.

When men say machine reaction change the body of God.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am a skeptic. I doubt that human cognition can do anything. I can give you my reasoning based on a natural world.

That is why Jehovah allowed Adam and Eve to "do their own thing" when they rejected HIS sense of right vs wrong. (Good or evil.)

 

[YoursTrue]

No.

You are not conscious about gravity. You were taught that gravity exists using axioms and definitions of science. A gymnast might be said to be conscious of gravity if he feels the center of the earth and is acquainted with definitions. People confuse consciousness for language because we are taught everything known with language as the medium and language supporting the mental models we make of all knowledge.

Consciousness transcends the brain and encompasses the mind/ body and it transcends language, belief, taxonomies, induction, and abstractions. Indeed, all these things act as impediments to the understanding of the nature of consciousness. A sparrow understands consciousness where a human does not.

Consciousness is that which allows the individual to survive and succeed.

I know gravity exists because of a few things. One, what Isaac Newton figured, and two, my existence makes me aware of what is accepted about things attracting in a certain way.

 

[rational experiences]

Inventive reasoning for machine reactive only controlled by human designer.

Never natural history.

You did not invent space.......wait a minute the theist theoried to react a space to react a conversion to mass. Whatever mass he wanted converted.

Not natural history.

You did not invent stone spatial energy plus vacuum did.

You did not invent heavens.

Stone and a vacuum.did.

Always two bodies interacting create.

You did not invent presence water.

Water supports cooled hydrogen and oxygen conditions.

Heated oxygen kills us.
Heated water in environment kills us.
Heated hydrogen kills us.

Separation one status science human imposed

One he says is science.
I own one says the man scientist inventor of it.

Once he said O pi. It never existed.
Once he said O Phi...second to pi....it never existed.

Natural gas light in vacuum held.

Fallout gases burning science caused.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did not use it first @exchmist referred to it, and I simply quoted it to refute his contentions. The reference affirmed that science gives an objective understanding of consciousness. There are still unknowns, but science works.

Read it carefully . . .

"Consciousness as we have been discussing it is a biological process, explained by neurobiological and other cognitive mechanisms, and whose raison d’etre can in principle be accounted for on evolutionary grounds. To be sure, it is still largely mysterious, but (contra Dennett and Churchland) it is no mere illusion (it’s too metabolically expensive, and it clearly does a lot of important cognitive work), and (contra Chalmers, Nagel, etc.) it does not represent a problem of principle for scientific naturalism."

© Prof. Massimo Pigliucci 2013

Yeah, if you then read Pigliucci's actual argument it is philosophy and not science.

 

[firedragon]

As far as that goes, I expect to get à covid vaccine and hope I don't suffer a bad response. Not blind faith but hoping not for a bad outcome.

Me too.

 

[exchemist]

I did not use it first @exchmist referred to it, and I simply quoted it to refute his contentions. The reference affirmed that science gives an objective understanding of consciousness. There are still unknowns, but science works.

Read it carefully . . .

"Consciousness as we have been discussing it is a biological process, explained by neurobiological and other cognitive mechanisms, and whose raison d’etre can in principle be accounted for on evolutionary grounds. To be sure, it is still largely mysterious, but (contra Dennett and Churchland) it is no mere illusion (it’s too metabolically expensive, and it clearly does a lot of important cognitive work), and (contra Chalmers, Nagel, etc.) it does not represent a problem of principle for scientific naturalism."

© Prof. Massimo Pigliucci 2013

I would be intrigued to know in what respect this "refutes" my contention, since, as I said when I referenced it, I agree with Pigliucci!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would be intrigued to know in what respect this "refutes" my contention, since, as I said when I referenced it, I agree with Pigliucci!

As long as you understand that his reasoning is philosophy and not science, you can agree all you like.

 

[exchemist]

As long as you understand that his reasoning is philosophy and not science, you can agree all you like.

Well of course. That's why I quoted Pigliucci. The original question about consciousness that was asked is one that is not self-evidently a science question. One has to resort to philosophy to work whether it can be a science question at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

As long as you understand that his reasoning is philosophy and not science, you can agree all you like.

The conclusion endorsed the science with consciousness as a biological process, and not the philosophical/theological understanding of consciousness.

 

[Brian2]

Having said that, the very notion is nonsensical because in reality the "spiritual realm" is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. The "spiritual realm" is a religious concept, meaningless in context of scientific inquiry.

And that can be a problem when it comes to science actually finding evidence of the spirit realm in the very fact of not being able to find a cause in the natural. This can be seen in such things as NDEs where there is stubborn clinging to finding a natural cause when it is plainly spiritual in some cases.

Biased towards evidence.
Just about everything that science tackled was once attributed to gods and the "spiritual realm".
Why would this be any different?

The religious may "declare" it to be different, just like they "declared" so many things in the past.
Why should science care?

Science cannot care unless it too is conscious. Many scientists however do believe dead matter cannot become conscious no matter how it is organised.
Why do you say biased towards evidence when there is no evidence, just naturalistic guesses and the assumption that it has to be in the chemistry or physics.
The only reason in the past that phenomena were attributed to the spiritual realm is because of lack of knowledge about the natural world. We have this knowledge now and religious people also know about the natural forces at play. Consciousness is another level in that we now know about forces at play and that matter is dead, which was really plain at the start anyway btw. Science has to do the tests and make sure the initial intuition was correct however, but science will never stop seeking for a natural answer even after 100 years of searching. And many people will still then be saying that consciousness is natural and one day science will find the reasons.....................or some naturalistic answer will be given which could be completely wrong because it was the best answer available, and then atheists will be saying that science has found the answer.

 

[Brian2]

"biased" towards evidence.

You say that like you think it's a bad thing.

I did not say biased towards evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

And that can be a problem when it comes to science actually finding evidence of the spirit realm in the very fact of not being able to find a cause in the natural. This can be seen in such things as NDEs where there is stubborn clinging to finding a natural cause when it is plainly spiritual in some cases.

The foundation of science is the fact that natural laws and natural processes are the origins of the nature of our physical existence. All the theories and hypothesis test the hypothesis has natural origins. There is no objective verifiable evidence of any other cause.

 

[Brian2]

I submit that the ONLY reason you say this things, is the bolded part. Because you have religious beliefs that overlap into these scientific explanations and which aren't all that compatible with the scientific explanation.

And why do you say what you do unless it is because of a commitment to there being no spiritual realm.

But let's be serious here... the "naturalistic methodology" behind a theory like evolution is the exact same methodology as the one that resulted in theories like plate tectonics, relativity, germs, atoms, etc etc etc etc.

That is what makes it a problem for the scientific community (esp those who deny spirit) to admit it could be anything else but natural.
We do see in such things as evolution, guesses about possible mechanisms which could be completely wrong if God did it, which imo is the best way of answering how data and knowledge became embedded into our genes, but naturalistic educated guesses are at play and atheist think it has all been worked out because they think the guesses could have happened.

So I submit that your potential objection here is not at all against the methodology (because then you would also have a problem with pretty much ALL theories of the natural sciences), but rather your potential objection to certain specific theories , is rather that you have a priori faith based religious beliefs that don't play nice with those specific evidence based scientific theories.

True I do have a priori faith based beliefs, but they do agree with common sense and many scientists would agree.
But I do have objections to all the theories when they are seen as somehow overturning the idea of a God.

There is thus nothing wrong with the science. The problem, is incompatible religious beliefs.
When mere beliefs don't match the evidence of reality, it's not reality that is incorrect.

We need to follow the evidence but what evidence.

 

[exchemist]

The conclusion endorsed the science with consciousness as a biological process, and not the philosophical/theological understanding of consciousness.

This is Pigliucci's philosophical understanding of consciousness. He's a philosopher, you might have noticed.

He uses his philosophical reasoning to dismiss the "hard problem" as a category mistake. That is the point of the article. It is a philosophical argument. From a philosopher.